Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2013, 09:14 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,450,045 times
Reputation: 4243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
51.1%
I know...Sickening. I really am having a very hard time accepting the realization that way too many of our fellow Americans have fallen prey to being used as a "useful idiot" and believe and trust all the lies that are easily debunked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2013, 09:23 AM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,692,234 times
Reputation: 23295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
I know...Sickening. I really am having a very hard time accepting the realization that way too many of our fellow Americans have fallen prey to being used as a "useful idiot" and believe and trust all the lies that are easily debunked.
.............some of the people all of the time...........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 09:24 AM
 
2,083 posts, read 1,620,425 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I am 6'-7" tall and weigh 250 pounds, my current BMI is 28.2. In order to have a BMI of 24.9 (maximum for "Normal" weight) I would have to weigh no more than 221 pounds. I am not overweight. I have the same size waist at age 58 that I did when I was age 28. The last time I weighed 221 pounds I was 19 years old, and gaunt in appearance with sunken cheeks.
BMI is a horrible system to gauge obesity because it doesn't account for frame size, muscle, etc.. I'm 6'4" and have an extra large frame. To be just under overweight, my weight would have to be about 205, and I would look emaciated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 09:34 AM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,698 posts, read 34,542,421 times
Reputation: 29285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You know, there are always a plethora of posts about "if a Republican did this. . ", "if a Democrat did that. . . ", most of which I discount as nonsense b/c no one has a crystal ball. HOWEVER, did the Dems mock Laura Bush's literacy efforts (and Barbara's before her)? Barbara Bush is pre-CD, but I sure as hell never saw any posts from anyone making fun of Laura. Did Sarah Palin have mock Laura and encourage kids to drop out of school, like she encouraged them to eat cookies in her mockery of Michelle?

I cannot think of a more innocuous program, politically, than childhood obesity. I don't get it. Nor do I get these references to Michelle herself as "fat". I should look so good!
oh, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 09:36 AM
 
12,282 posts, read 13,236,576 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Because that is not all that she is doing. Schools are required to follow a new school lunch meal pattern, thanks to Michelle Obama and her meddling with The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The last time I checked Michelle Obama was not elected to any public position by anyone. She needs to keep out of policy decisions, that is why we elect Congress.


We Are Hungry - YouTube
She is just filling in while Congress twiddles their thumbs!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 10:43 AM
 
1,077 posts, read 2,632,546 times
Reputation: 1071
My kids have lost weight......BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EATING THE DISGUSTING LUNCHES AT SCHOOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 10:55 AM
 
20,715 posts, read 19,357,373 times
Reputation: 8280
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston View Post
I'll never understand the repubs demonization of the first lady for simply encouraging kids/parents to eat healthier and get more exercise.
Perhaps because her ball and chain should be creating policy that relates to it like ending subsidies on junk food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 10:58 AM
 
Location: the Beaver State
6,464 posts, read 13,437,760 times
Reputation: 3581
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston View Post
I'll never understand the repubs demonization of the first lady for simply encouraging kids/parents to eat healthier and get more exercise.
It's simple. These kids are being geared towards becoming life long under consumers. By eating healthier, they're learning good life skills that will be in use for the rest of their lives. They're more likely to eat fruits and vegetables and less likely to eat five Big Macs a day.

This is going to directly lead to the collapse of the entire fast food and snack food industry!

That's why Republicans hate her. She's making a difference in their Shadow Corporation's off shore Bahama based bank accounts.

Last edited by hamellr; 02-21-2013 at 11:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Western Colorado
12,858 posts, read 16,868,731 times
Reputation: 33509
Every first lady had an agenda or special program. Her's was nutrition. I don't think the child obesity problem is "solved" by any means. Kids don't seem to go outside and play anymore, they sit around play video games and watch SpongeBob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2013, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,448,604 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu View Post
BMI is a horrible system to gauge obesity because it doesn't account for frame size, muscle, etc.. I'm 6'4" and have an extra large frame. To be just under overweight, my weight would have to be about 205, and I would look emaciated.
I agree. It is the "one size fits all" mentality we see always coming from a centralized government.

I guess it never occurred to these idiots at WHO that biology tends to be varied, even within species.

The best formula that I have seen was to multiply your current body weight by 15. The result is the number of calories you must consume in order to maintain that weight. Of course it is not perfect either, for example, it does not take into consideration someone's metabolism. I ate everything in sight from my teens well into my twenties and could not gain a pound. Then at age 28, BANG! My metabolism finally slowed down and I gained 50 pounds in six months. Thirty years later, I still weigh the same as I did at age 28, same waste size (which is still much smaller than my chest size).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top